Skip to main content
11:00 am
those projects. lastly, we have heard consistently from the community, the importance of incorporating a local job opportunities and contracting opportunities and so this funding request includes a request for developing an outreach strategy to go out and engage folks in the community so they can participate in the opportunities that will be available with both of these projects. given the work we've done and the community outreach, we are essentially, i think we kind of presented this conclusion or rather thinking on it initially but further work has essentially found that the option one, the berm option combined with the
11:01 am
connector road really are not ideal are the best options we have in terms of maintaining that bridge with the funds we have in terms of facilitating a station and maintaining local access. and in terms of facilitating other land use activities in the area. those include the pc but go into a little more detail. we also included in this package of improvement and city project for the connector road a vacation of the northeastern portion of quint street. that is in the diagram, the red area. that area actually operates two areas of properties as they work to plan the relocation of those digesters.
11:02 am
this package in the connector road project intends to really maximize that compatibility and facilitate that process that we've heard support for. finally, the purpose of this request is to really iron out some of those final questions and issues that the community has raised that we haven't been able to answer quite yet given the phase of design we're at. there are two pieces of recommendations. the first is to recommend support for cal train to proceed with design of their option one, the berm option for the bridge replacement. that includes allowing them to work with the schedules and coordination with the connector road project to make sure that we're able to minimize that gap enclosure. the second piece of this
11:03 am
recommendation is to provide funding for the next phase of connector road design. that includes allocating prop k funds to dpw which will be leading the 30% design effort for the connector road. that includes environmental review as well as starting right at negotiation. the purpose of that is to get more clarity to the schedule and make sure the connector road can move forward in parallel with the bridge replacement project. really make sure we're minimizing that construction overlap period. lastly to appropriate prop k funds to the authority to continue working on planning and project oversight as well as conducting further rounds of outreach to go into the community with the work that we're going to be doing and providing some answers to the community in the spring before we come back to the board. finally that authority piece does include that local business
11:04 am
robust outreach strategy to make sure people are aware of and can participate in those contracting opportunities. we'll come back to the community and back to the board in the spring with remaining questions in terms of design, schedule and what the strategy is for local business involvement and a little more look at our funding plan. we'll present that the community and board before we recommend any final selection of an option or any further implementing action. we'll come back in the spring with those. with that, i like to take any questions but i also like to note that we have staff here in the audience. we have murphy, tasha
11:05 am
bartholomew. thank you. >> thank you for your presentation and all your work. i appreciate the outreach and community. those go into comments. any member of the public like to comment. we'll do three minutes. >> tony kelly i'm a member. i also went to the committee meeting last month on this subject. i think there's a couple point that's are rather under reported by cta staff. i want to call them to your attention here before you decide to move forward or not. the first is -- the level of opposition to option one, the berm at the last committee
11:06 am
meeting was pretty substantial. actually a little bit heated about the closure of quint street and berm option one is the only one that closes quint street. that got a lot of heat. i think the staff report that to you fully. the reason why i think that's important might be here. you just saw this -- it was just mentioned at the end of the presentation from staff, not only does the pc own this property here, they also own this property here. this portion of quint street, if were not be a street, is more valuable to the pcs to anyone else on the earth it up will fulfill other goals they would have. now, this point wasn't mentioned in this last presentation in september. in fact, i was told by -- we were all told by chris wattling
11:07 am
and his blog this proposal of vacating quint street to facilitate pc planning has been in their plan since at least 2009. which predate this whole public outreach process. again, wasn't mentioned at the slack. this is all being done in the transportation planning. it's also there's been no public discussion of value of that street and getting value out of puc for that vacation. need to make a policy decision about the vacation before we bring discussion of value to you. it appears stakeholders are little more important than others. it appears this could be a bit of a gift of the city
11:08 am
treat to the p -- street to the poc. it's this authority decision to take one for the team and help out the city agency on an important project. that's a policy decision for you to make. we should be open about that rather than hiding and claiming that it is simply a transportation planning because it clearly isn't. thank you for listening. >> thank you any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, we will close public comments. cohen you like to come back and perhaps maybe share any response to the comments that were made now about understanding about the land and how that's being used helping come up with option one? >> sure, thanks. i think these are important question and we've been working
11:09 am
through the pc you saw there and that vacated piece of property. the vacation of that northeastern portion of quint is more recent addition to the connector road project. it actually was added more recently. initially the option one, berm would have included the vacation of the piece of quint street, that is directly at the tracks in order to do the berm but that additional piece up on the northeast portion was added. the reason that was added is actually twofold, one, to facilitate potential staging of both projects concurrently. the berm or bridge replacement project and the connector road project. vacation of that area allows potentially more staging for
11:10 am
both of those projects to happen together and minimize that gap in construction time closure. it also does facilitate the poc's master planning process. as i mentioned earlier, working with the poc as one partner in looking at what other funding options are available to reduce that prop k request or how the pc can be involved in this process moving forward. that is something we will plan to work with pc on and come back in the spring with a more detailed plan of exactly what that could look like. >> i know that we had spoke about this not just a couple weeks ago, not even earlier, maybe about a month in a half ago. this was mentioned about the use of pc land and this corner in the northeast section of the pc
11:11 am
land. to me it seems like a flexible use of land that helps enable different projects moving forward. what is that little corner, that triangle what is that used for? >> they lease it to an asphalt plant but they own the underlying piece of property. my understanding is that the short term lease and so, that may not be a long term use. >> thank you. >> good morning mr. chairman and commissioners. i think that there is no question that the poc has been a partner and they will continue to be at the table as this project goes through further stages of analysis and we see what the cost and further
11:12 am
technical challenges are to implementing it. as with any other where there's land use that's adjacent facilities there's an opportunity to capture some of that value, they are at the table as a potential funding partner. we are fully aware of that. we are aware they won. the time is fairly early in the process. i'll just note that we are working with them and that everything is on the table. >> also one of the findings from the community outreach, ways to use different sources -- >> right, that has to be the case with transportation project we work on in the city. transportation money is limited and we have to look at the utility of the project in relation to the land use that's
11:13 am
adjacent and see if there's a way to capture it it. the other side of it is, this potential oakdale cal train station is too important. it's too good of an opportunity separated transit access for folks around that station to downtown and to the airport in places south of valencia and somehow include it because of the bridge work. that's the origin of this whole effort. it's not my favorite sport to close city streets. this is a way that you can have your cake and eat it. we can have the connector road, but we can have this potentially fabulous connection from that part of town into downtown where employment is going at the same time. in the process perhaps give the poc a more useable piece of land where currently we have industrial uses that are -- i
11:14 am
would surmise based on highest use of that space and a street that's definitely under utilized. >> great, thank you. commissioner cohen? >> thank you very much. i like to take a chance and opportunity to thank t.a. staff and cal train staff for the work they've done for the last year in a half to address many of the concerns you heard raised here. alternatives for our consideration that replaces this bridge, which by the way once upon a time was very beautiful. what we want to do also much like -- also preserve the right and integrity to continue to have a future oakdale cal train
11:15 am
station. that's very important. not just the southeast part of the city but the entire part of san francisco. we still have significant amount of information that we're going to learn from the design from both and berm and connector road as they continue to develop. certainly made it very clear to the community and to the department that my priorities. dallas three of them. there's first to see the bridge replaced. certainly very aware of the historic treatment that the southeast particularly has received from san francisco and in the last two years have been trying to write that social justice inequality. continuing to work on these goals to provide implementation of this project of this process as this project progresses and
11:16 am
also i want to underscore that the poc is a huge stakeholder and is a strong potential funding partner in this. i assure members of community that no one is going to be taking anything for the team. thank you. >> thank you commissioner cohen. we have a motion to move the item forward. supervisor cohen, seconded by commissioner farrell. we'll take that without objection. let's go on to item six. >> adoption of the 2012 strategic plan with conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning chair and committee members. chad transportation planner with the authority. over the past few months, we've wrote a number of items to the committee.
11:17 am
we presented the draft for the recommendations for the first five years of the prop a program. for short background, 30 year expenditure plan established categories you see on the screen here. along with percentage of revenues to be allocated to each the three categories over the life of the expenditure plan. what goes into the strategy plan? for a little bit of context, the prop double a strategic plan will be shorter and complex. mainly because of the smaller dollar amount. the simpler expenditure plan and the fact that prop double a does not utilize financing. also the fire year prioritization program, each the program categories are part of the strategic plan as opposed to
11:18 am
prop k where they are stand alone documents. in july the board approved policies as in attachments three and four. for revenues prop double a revenues are projected just over $4.8 million per year. that's flat rate or $144 million over 30 years. the focus of today's agenda is made up of programming in the five y ps i ps. we had about 26 million available for projects in the first five years of programming an we received over $55 million in projects. we had to do a lot of cutting to develop a recommendation that fits been development of funds. prop double a is a relatively small program in terms of dollars and pay as you go program. at this point, we had over a
11:19 am
year in a half of revenue collection. we're at the point where we have enough revenues collected and we can start allocating. attachment one of this memo shows the draft recommended hasn't changed since september. attachment two shows the revised programming recommendation since september. focus on attachment two here on out. for people watching and the audience, that same attachment is shown on pages 59 and 60 of the agenda. one side of the 11 by 17 page 59 and 60 shows total funds requested each the project by phase. table two, that shows cash flow. we use that information to make sure we stay true to pay as you go program. a few general comments on the
11:20 am
programming, we recommended a signing of allocation target described in the expenditure plan each the categories. in other words -- that's because we had more request in each the three categories and funds available for any of the three. on an annual basis, we are able to flexibly assign cash flow across the three categories. in that instance, allow us to front load programming of street resurfacing project. our recommendation is consistent with voter mandate to use prop double a to fund projects. our application to prioritization criteria put emphasis on projects design and construction in the first two years. that means this current fiscal year and '13 and '14. in september, i described a number of recommended and not recommended projects within each the categories. i won't go into every project
11:21 am
today, i do want to spend time on the retainment and the programming we've made. this has been the changes in refinements have been based on communication. there are also three special conditions included in today's action. these are all on the slide presented now. dpw initial application for this project included repaving work on 9th street and brian to 8th to 11th. dpw staff informed us the brian street segment will need two repairs. the schedule for this work is to be determined and dpw staff anticipate funding this segment with future gas tax, prop k or other available funding. we've kept the full amount program at dpw request. next is dolores. the draft we did bring you to in
11:22 am
december. the project, dpw submitted dolores street pavement that project includes pedestrian enhancement. scheduled for construction in the fiscal year '14 and '15. there wasn't enough -- after funding higher ranking project, there weren't enough prop double a funds to fund all the eligible projects.
11:23 am
the condition associate with this action, the condition which has been agreed to by dpw to fund the long street project unless dpw secures other funds. district six, safety projects. we recommended funding for two pet safety projects located in district six. one is mid clock crossing. it was identified in the neighborhood transportation plan. several of the treatments included in the mcallister street project, recommended in the 2007 and site on transportation plan. to know the mcallister project
11:24 am
includes sidewalk expansion leverage a project funded by u.c. hastings. our initial recommendations includes one and two way project. our previous staff recommendations not fund that project was primarily because of the $6.5 million cost of the project compared to $6.6 million available for the entire category over the first five years. in addition to that, there's also -- at that point there was a lot of uncertainty around the development negotiation. commissioner kim is interested in finding ways to move all three of these projects forward and reach out to district six stakeholders. that leads into condition where the authority will commit to strategic plan based on further community input and discussion to be led by the district office.
11:25 am
>> if i could make a couple comments. i do appreciate the t.a. working so closely with our office as we talk about all the different p riorities. because the conversion of ellis two way is such a large amount. we're also interested what pieces it might cost. one of the requests that had been recommended by some of our community leaders is whether we could do critical intersections on eddie and ellis to help increase pedestrian safety. understanding that that this is a large project, which is quite expensive and couldn't be completely filled by prop double a alone. i think we want to make sure that we have -- we want to understand mcallister are a priority for us as well but have a larger broader discussion. we do want to thank staff for your work on this.
11:26 am
>> on the next slide, start with winston. in september and october, we worked with staff from sfmta and dpw to determine the appropriate project needs and delivery approach for sf states. the outcome of that sf state will continue to be the lead on the project. the modified scope includes newly expanded sidewalks. portions on the north side and sidewalk expansion on the south side of winston and buckingham. the project includes correcting road alignment of winston to improve existing crosswalk. the change in scope do not affect the overall project. sfmta and dpw staff indicated their project of the over all
11:27 am
project. we will don't work with sfmta to identify additional funding for polk including but not limited to prop k funds. last one i'm going to talk about is the rapid network place holder. the sfmta submitted three travel time reduction capital projects requesting $5.8 million in prop double a funds. all three of those projects are currently cleared through the transit effectiveness program. we understand there are some uncertainty over the schedule and the funding plans compared
11:28 am
to the other projects submitted in this project. in september we proposed a funding place holder for rapid network project in fiscal years '14, '15. this allows us to fund four other projects that are ready to be delivered in the first two years of the program. at the september meeting, we did hear support from commissioner cohen and members of the public. since then we have met with sfmta staff. we've offered support to the sfmta for potential prop k allocation to further project development of these projects. there are $7.3 million in prop k funds and tap funding strategy development will be focus of prop k strategic plan. we plan to start in early 2013. we also continue to work with the sfmta to identify additional funding for pet projects since
11:29 am
since -- including the none eir improvement. the condition we included the action, priority for receiving any additional prop double a funds in the transit reliability category in the current five year period and also first priority for programming in the transit category in the next prop double a strategic update. you can find more information on all of these projects in the enclosure that i mentioned. final i want to note we made several small revisions to the policies and prioritization criteria. these are attachments three and four. the more substantial change consist clarifying consequences that requires project implementation to occur within 12 months. we added language stating a project doesn't start within 12 months but the sponsor can request a new

December 4, 2012 11:00am-11:30am PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Cohen 4, Oakdale Cal 2, San Francisco 2, Buckingham 1, U.c. Hastings 1, Valencia 1, The City 1, Cal 1, Cta 1, Dallas 1, Us 1, Dpw 1, Lastly 1, Farrell 1, Sfmta 1, Ellis 1, Eddie 1, Kim 1, Winston 1, Dolores 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color